>>I forgot to ask, is this with the patched version of tcmalloc that >>theoretically fixes the TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES issue? Yes, the patched version of tcmalloc, but also the last version from gperftools git. (I'm talking about qemu here, not osds). I have tried to increased TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, but it doesn't help. For osd, increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES is helping. (Benchs are still running, I try to overload them as much as possible) ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mark Nelson" <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> À: "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Envoyé: Mardi 16 Juin 2015 19:04:27 Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k I forgot to ask, is this with the patched version of tcmalloc that theoretically fixes the TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES issue? Mark On 06/16/2015 11:46 AM, Mark Nelson wrote: > Hi Alexandre, > > Excellent find! Have you also informed the QEMU developers of your > discovery? > > Mark > > On 06/16/2015 11:38 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: >> Hi, >> >> some news about qemu with tcmalloc vs jemmaloc. >> >> I'm testing with multiple disks (with iothreads) in 1 qemu guest. >> >> And if tcmalloc is a little faster than jemmaloc, >> >> I have hit a lot of time the >> tcmalloc::ThreadCache::ReleaseToCentralCache bug. >> >> increasing TCMALLOC_MAX_TOTAL_THREAD_CACHE_BYTES, don't help. >> >> >> with multiple disk, I'm around 200k iops with tcmalloc (before hitting >> the bug) and 350kiops with jemmaloc. >> >> The problem is that when I hit malloc bug, I'm around 4000-10000 iops, >> and only way to fix is is to restart qemu ... >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx> >> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Irek Fasikhov" >> <malmyzh@xxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >> "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 08:58:21 >> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >> >> Thanks, posted the question in openstack list. Hopefully will get some >> expert opinion. >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER >> <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> here a libvirt xml sample from libvirt src >>> >>> (you need to define <iothreads> number, then assign then in disks). >>> >>> I don't use openstack, so I really don't known how it's working with it. >>> >>> >>> <domain type='qemu'> >>> <name>QEMUGuest1</name> >>> <uuid>c7a5fdbd-edaf-9455-926a-d65c16db1809</uuid> >>> <memory unit='KiB'>219136</memory> >>> <currentMemory unit='KiB'>219136</currentMemory> >>> <vcpu placement='static'>2</vcpu> >>> <iothreads>2</iothreads> >>> <os> >>> <type arch='i686' machine='pc'>hvm</type> >>> <boot dev='hd'/> >>> </os> >>> <clock offset='utc'/> >>> <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff> >>> <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot> >>> <on_crash>destroy</on_crash> >>> <devices> >>> <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu</emulator> >>> <disk type='file' device='disk'> >>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='1'/> >>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest1.img'/> >>> <target dev='vdb' bus='virtio'/> >>> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x04' >>> function='0x0'/> >>> </disk> >>> <disk type='file' device='disk'> >>> <driver name='qemu' type='raw' iothread='2'/> >>> <source file='/var/lib/libvirt/images/iothrtest2.img'/> >>> <target dev='vdc' bus='virtio'/> >>> </disk> >>> <controller type='usb' index='0'/> >>> <controller type='ide' index='0'/> >>> <controller type='pci' index='0' model='pci-root'/> >>> <memballoon model='none'/> >>> </devices> >>> </domain> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "pushpesh sharma" <pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx> >>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Irek Fasikhov" >>> <malmyzh@xxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >>> "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Envoyé: Vendredi 12 Juin 2015 07:52:41 >>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >>> >>> Hi Alexandre, >>> >>> I agree with your rational, of one iothread per disk. CPU consumed in >>> IOwait is pretty high in each VM. But I am not finding a way to set >>> the same on a nova instance. I am using openstack Juno with QEMU+KVM. >>> As per libvirt documentation for setting iothreads, I can edit >>> domain.xml directly and achieve the same effect. However in as in >>> openstack env domain xml is created by nova with some additional >>> metadata, so editing the domain xml using 'virsh edit' does not seems >>> to work(I agree, it is not a very cloud way of doing things, but a >>> hack). Changes made there vanish after saving them, due to reason >>> libvirt validation fails on the same. >>> >>> #virsh dumpxml instance-000000c5 > vm.xml >>> #virt-xml-validate vm.xml >>> Relax-NG validity error : Extra element cpu in interleave >>> vm.xml:1: element domain: Relax-NG validity error : Element domain >>> failed to validate content >>> vm.xml fails to validate >>> >>> Second approach I took was to setting QoS in volumes types. But there >>> is no option to set iothreads per volume, there are parameter realted >>> to max_read/wrirte ops/bytes. >>> >>> Thirdly, editing Nova flavor and proving extra specs like >>> hw:cpu_socket/thread/core, can change guest CPU topology however again >>> no way to set iothread. It does accept hw_disk_iothreads(no type check >>> in place, i believe ), but can not pass the same in domain.xml. >>> >>> Could you suggest me a way to set the same. >>> >>> -Pushpesh >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Alexandre DERUMIER >>> <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back >>>>>> to you if I need some qemu setting trick :-) >>>> >>>> Sure no problem. >>>> >>>> (BTW, I can reach around 200k iops in 1 qemu vm with 5 virtio disks >>>> with 1 iothread by disk) >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Somnath Roy" <Somnath.Roy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx>, "Irek Fasikhov" >>>> <malmyzh@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "pushpesh sharma" >>>> <pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 09:06:32 >>>> Objet: RE: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >>>> >>>> Hi Alexandre, >>>> Thanks for sharing the data. >>>> I need to try out the performance on qemu soon and may come back to >>>> you if I need some qemu setting trick :-) >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Somnath >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On >>>> Behalf Of Alexandre DERUMIER >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:42 PM >>>> To: Irek Fasikhov >>>> Cc: ceph-devel; pushpesh sharma; ceph-users >>>> Subject: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops >>>> around 40k >>>> >>>>>> Very good work! >>>>>> Do you have a rpm-file? >>>>>> Thanks. >>>> no sorry, I'm have compiled it manually (and I'm using debian jessie >>>> as client) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Irek Fasikhov" <malmyzh@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> À: "aderumier" <aderumier@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: "Robert LeBlanc" <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-devel" >>>> <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "pushpesh sharma" >>>> <pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2015 07:21:42 >>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around >>>> 40k >>>> >>>> Hi, Alexandre. >>>> >>>> Very good work! >>>> Do you have a rpm-file? >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> 2015-06-10 7:10 GMT+03:00 Alexandre DERUMIER < aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > : >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have tested qemu with last tcmalloc 2.4, and the improvement is >>>> huge with iothread: 50k iops (+45%) ! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 qemu : no-iothread : >>>> tcmalloc (2.2.1) : iops=34516 (+3%) qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : >>>> iops=42226 (+26%) qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=35974 >>>> (+7%) >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516 >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) qemu : iothread : >>>> jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : >>>> iops=50276 (+45%) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc (2.4) : iops=50276 (+45%) >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [214.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [54.1K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=894: Wed Jun 10 >>>> 05:54:24 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=201108KB/s, iops=50276, runt= >>>> 26070msec slat (usec): min=1, max=1136, avg= 3.54, stdev= 3.58 clat >>>> (usec): min=128, max=6262, avg=631.41, stdev=197.71 lat (usec): >>>> min=149, max=6265, avg=635.27, stdev=197.40 clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 318], 5.00th=[ 378], 10.00th=[ 418], 20.00th=[ 474], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 516], 40.00th=[ 564], 50.00th=[ 612], 60.00th=[ 652], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 700], 80.00th=[ 756], 90.00th=[ 860], 95.00th=[ 980], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1272], 99.50th=[ 1384], 99.90th=[ 1688], 99.95th=[ 1896], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=145608, max=249688, per=100.00%, avg=201108.00, >>>> stdev=21718.87 lat (usec) : 250=0.04%, 500=25.84%, 750=53.00%, >>>> 1000=16.63% lat (msec) : 2=4.46%, 4=0.03%, 10=0.01% cpu : usr=9.73%, >>>> sys=24.93%, ctx=66417, majf=0, minf=38 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, >>>> 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% submit : 0=0.0%, >>>> 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : >>>> 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 latency : >>>> target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=201107KB/s, minb=201107KB/s, >>>> maxb=201107KB/s, mint=26070msec, maxt=26070msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1302555/0, merge=0/0, ticks=715176/0, in_queue=714840, >>>> util=99.73% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [158.7MB/0KB/0KB /s] [40.6K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=889: Wed Jun 10 >>>> 06:05:06 2015 read : io=5120.0MB, bw=143897KB/s, iops=35974, runt= >>>> 36435msec slat (usec): min=1, max=710, avg= 3.31, stdev= 3.35 clat >>>> (usec): min=191, max=4740, avg=884.66, stdev=315.65 lat (usec): >>>> min=289, max=4743, avg=888.31, stdev=315.51 clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 462], 5.00th=[ 516], 10.00th=[ 548], 20.00th=[ 596], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 652], 40.00th=[ 764], 50.00th=[ 868], 60.00th=[ 940], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1004], 80.00th=[ 1096], 90.00th=[ 1256], 95.00th=[ 1416], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2024], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2640], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3632] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=98352, max=177328, per=99.91%, avg=143772.11, >>>> stdev=21782.39 lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=3.48%, 750=35.69%, >>>> 1000=30.01% lat (msec) : 2=29.74%, 4=1.07%, 10=0.01% cpu : >>>> usr=7.10%, sys=16.90%, ctx=54855, majf=0, minf=38 IO depths : >>>> 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >=64=0.0% submit >>>> : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=143896KB/s, minb=143896KB/s, >>>> maxb=143896KB/s, mint=36435msec, maxt=36435msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1301357/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1033036/0, in_queue=1032716, >>>> util=99.85% >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > >>>> À: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-devel" < >>>> ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >, "pushpesh sharma" < >>>> pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:47:27 >>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around >>>> 40k >>>> >>>> Hi Robert, >>>> >>>>>> What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either >>>>>> tcmalloc or >>>>>> jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc instead of >>>>>> tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be the case). >>>> yes,from my test, for osd tcmalloc is a little faster (but very >>>> little) than jemalloc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to >>>>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much >>>>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1] >>>> >>>> >>>> Just have done qemu test (4k randread - rbd_cache=off), I don't see >>>> speed regression with tcmalloc. >>>> with qemu iothread, tcmalloc have a speed increase over glib >>>> with qemu iothread, jemalloc have a speed decrease >>>> >>>> without iothread, jemalloc have a big speed increase >>>> >>>> this is with >>>> -qemu 2.3 >>>> -tcmalloc 2.2.1 >>>> -jemmaloc 3.6 >>>> -libc6 2.19 >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 >>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 (+3%) >>>> qemu : no-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 (+26%) >>>> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516 >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 (+12%) >>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 (-19%) >>>> >>>> >>>> (The benefit of iothreads is that we can scale with more disks in 1vm) >>>> >>>> >>>> fio results: >>>> ------------ >>>> >>>> qemu : iothread : tcmalloc : iops=38676 >>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=0): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [123.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] [31.6K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1265: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 18:16:53 2015 >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=154707KB/s, iops=38676, runt= 33889msec >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=715, avg= 3.63, stdev= 3.42 >>>> clat (usec): min=152, max=5736, avg=822.12, stdev=289.34 >>>> lat (usec): min=231, max=5740, avg=826.10, stdev=289.08 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 402], 5.00th=[ 466], 10.00th=[ 510], 20.00th=[ 572], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 636], 40.00th=[ 716], 50.00th=[ 780], 60.00th=[ 852], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 932], 80.00th=[ 1020], 90.00th=[ 1160], 95.00th=[ 1352], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1800], 99.50th=[ 1944], 99.90th=[ 2256], 99.95th=[ 2448], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3888] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=123888, max=198584, per=100.00%, avg=154824.40, >>>> stdev=16978.03 >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=8.91%, 750=36.44%, 1000=32.63% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=21.65%, 4=0.37%, 10=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=8.29%, sys=19.76%, ctx=55882, majf=0, minf=39 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=154707KB/s, minb=154707KB/s, >>>> maxb=154707KB/s, mint=33889msec, maxt=33889msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1302739/0, merge=0/0, ticks=934444/0, in_queue=934096, >>>> util=99.77% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : no-iothread : tcmalloc : iops=34516 >>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [163.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [41.8K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=896: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 18:19:08 2015 >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=138065KB/s, iops=34516, runt= 37974msec >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=708, avg= 3.98, stdev= 3.57 >>>> clat (usec): min=208, max=11858, avg=921.43, stdev=333.61 >>>> lat (usec): min=266, max=11862, avg=925.77, stdev=333.40 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 434], 5.00th=[ 510], 10.00th=[ 564], 20.00th=[ 652], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 732], 40.00th=[ 812], 50.00th=[ 876], 60.00th=[ 940], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1020], 80.00th=[ 1112], 90.00th=[ 1320], 95.00th=[ 1576], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1992], 99.50th=[ 2128], 99.90th=[ 2736], 99.95th=[ 3248], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 4320] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=77312, max=185576, per=99.74%, avg=137709.88, >>>> stdev=16883.77 >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=4.36%, 750=27.61%, 1000=35.60% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=31.49%, 4=0.92%, 10=0.02%, 20=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=7.19%, sys=19.52%, ctx=55903, majf=0, minf=38 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=138064KB/s, minb=138064KB/s, >>>> maxb=138064KB/s, mint=37974msec, maxt=37974msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1309902/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1068768/0, in_queue=1068396, >>>> util=99.86% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : iothread : glibc : iops=34516 >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [133.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [34.2K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=876: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 18:24:01 2015 >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=137786KB/s, iops=34446, runt= 38051msec >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=496, avg= 3.88, stdev= 3.66 >>>> clat (usec): min=283, max=7515, avg=923.34, stdev=300.28 >>>> lat (usec): min=286, max=7519, avg=927.58, stdev=300.02 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 506], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 804], 50.00th=[ 884], 60.00th=[ 964], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1048], 80.00th=[ 1144], 90.00th=[ 1304], 95.00th=[ 1448], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1896], 99.50th=[ 2096], 99.90th=[ 2480], 99.95th=[ 2640], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3984] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=102680, max=171112, per=100.00%, avg=137877.78, >>>> stdev=15521.30 >>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.84%, 750=32.97%, 1000=30.82% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=34.65%, 4=0.71%, 10=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=7.42%, sys=19.47%, ctx=52455, majf=0, minf=38 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=137785KB/s, minb=137785KB/s, >>>> maxb=137785KB/s, mint=38051msec, maxt=38051msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1307426/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1051416/0, in_queue=1050972, >>>> util=99.85% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : no iothread : glibc : iops=33395 >>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [125.4MB/0KB/0KB /s] [32.9K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=886: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 18:27:18 2015 >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=133583KB/s, iops=33395, runt= 39248msec >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=1054, avg= 3.86, stdev= 4.29 >>>> clat (usec): min=139, max=12635, avg=952.85, stdev=335.51 >>>> lat (usec): min=303, max=12638, avg=957.01, stdev=335.29 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 516], 5.00th=[ 564], 10.00th=[ 596], 20.00th=[ 652], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 724], 40.00th=[ 820], 50.00th=[ 924], 60.00th=[ 996], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1080], 80.00th=[ 1176], 90.00th=[ 1336], 95.00th=[ 1528], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2320], 99.90th=[ 2672], 99.95th=[ 2928], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 4832] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=98136, max=171624, per=100.00%, avg=133682.64, >>>> stdev=19121.91 >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=0.57%, 750=32.57%, 1000=26.98% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=38.59%, 4=1.28%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=9.24%, sys=15.92%, ctx=51219, majf=0, minf=38 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=133583KB/s, minb=133583KB/s, >>>> maxb=133583KB/s, mint=39248msec, maxt=39248msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1304526/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1075020/0, in_queue=1074536, >>>> util=99.84% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : iothread : jemmaloc : iops=28023 >>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [97.9% done] [155.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [39.1K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:01s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=899: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 18:30:26 2015 >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=112094KB/s, iops=28023, runt= 46772msec >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=467, avg= 4.33, stdev= 4.77 >>>> clat (usec): min=253, max=11307, avg=1135.63, stdev=346.55 >>>> lat (usec): min=256, max=11309, avg=1140.39, stdev=346.22 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 510], 5.00th=[ 628], 10.00th=[ 700], 20.00th=[ 820], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 924], 40.00th=[ 1032], 50.00th=[ 1128], 60.00th=[ 1224], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 1320], 80.00th=[ 1416], 90.00th=[ 1560], 95.00th=[ 1688], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 2096], 99.50th=[ 2224], 99.90th=[ 2544], 99.95th=[ 2832], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 3760] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=91792, max=174416, per=99.90%, avg=111985.27, >>>> stdev=17381.70 >>>> lat (usec) : 500=0.80%, 750=13.10%, 1000=23.33% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=61.30%, 4=1.46%, 10=0.01%, 20=0.01% >>>> cpu : usr=7.12%, sys=17.43%, ctx=54507, majf=0, minf=38 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=112094KB/s, minb=112094KB/s, >>>> maxb=112094KB/s, mint=46772msec, maxt=46772msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1309169/0, merge=0/0, ticks=1305796/0, in_queue=1305376, >>>> util=98.68% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> qemu : non-iothread : jemmaloc : iops=42226 >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>> ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32 >>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>> Starting 1 process >>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.2MB/0KB/0KB /s] [43.9K/0/0 >>>> iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=892: Tue Jun 9 >>>> 18:34:11 2015 >>>> read : io=5120.0MB, bw=177130KB/s, iops=44282, runt= 29599msec >>>> slat (usec): min=1, max=527, avg= 3.80, stdev= 3.74 >>>> clat (usec): min=174, max=3841, avg=717.08, stdev=237.53 >>>> lat (usec): min=210, max=3844, avg=721.23, stdev=237.22 >>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>> | 1.00th=[ 354], 5.00th=[ 422], 10.00th=[ 462], 20.00th=[ 516], >>>> | 30.00th=[ 572], 40.00th=[ 628], 50.00th=[ 684], 60.00th=[ 740], >>>> | 70.00th=[ 804], 80.00th=[ 884], 90.00th=[ 1004], 95.00th=[ 1128], >>>> | 99.00th=[ 1544], 99.50th=[ 1672], 99.90th=[ 1928], 99.95th=[ 2064], >>>> | 99.99th=[ 2608] >>>> bw (KB /s): min=138120, max=230816, per=100.00%, avg=177192.14, >>>> stdev=23440.79 >>>> lat (usec) : 250=0.01%, 500=16.24%, 750=45.93%, 1000=27.46% >>>> lat (msec) : 2=10.30%, 4=0.07% >>>> cpu : usr=10.14%, sys=23.84%, ctx=60938, majf=0, minf=39 >>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=100.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% >>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.1%, 64=0.0%, >>>> >=64=0.0% >>>> issued : total=r=1310720/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>> >>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>> READ: io=5120.0MB, aggrb=177130KB/s, minb=177130KB/s, >>>> maxb=177130KB/s, mint=29599msec, maxt=29599msec >>>> >>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>> vdb: ios=1303992/0, merge=0/0, ticks=798008/0, in_queue=797636, >>>> util=99.80% >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Robert LeBlanc" < robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-devel" < >>>> ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >, "pushpesh sharma" < >>>> pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 18:00:29 >>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around >>>> 40k >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>> >>>> I also saw a similar performance increase by using alternative memory >>>> allocators. What I found was that Ceph OSDs performed well with either >>>> tcmalloc or jemalloc (except when RocksDB was built with jemalloc >>>> instead of tcmalloc, I'm still working to dig into why that might be >>>> the case). >>>> >>>> However, I found that tcmalloc with QEMU/KVM was very detrimental to >>>> small I/O, but provided huge gains in I/O >=1MB. Jemalloc was much >>>> better for QEMU/KVM in the tests that we ran. [1] >>>> >>>> I'm currently looking into I/O bottlenecks around the 16KB range and >>>> I'm seeing a lot of time in thread creation and destruction, the >>>> memory allocators are quite a bit down the list (both fio with >>>> ioengine rbd and on the OSDs). I wonder what the difference can be. >>>> I've tried using the async messenger but there wasn't a huge >>>> difference. [2] >>>> >>>> Further down the rabbit hole.... >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg20197.html >>>> [2] >>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg23982.html >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1 >>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>> >>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVdw2ZCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA4MwP/1vt65cvTyyVGGSGRrE8 >>>> unuWjafMHzl486XH+EaVrDVTXFVFOoncJ6kugSpD7yavtCpZNdhsIaTRZguU >>>> YpfAppNAJU5biSwNv9QPI7kPP2q2+I7Z8ZkvhcVnkjIythoeNnSjV7zJrw87 >>>> afq46GhPHqEXdjp3rOB4RRPniOMnub5oU6QRnKn3HPW8Dx9ZqTeCofRDnCY2 >>>> S695Dt1gzt0ERUOgrUUkt0FQJdkkV6EURcUschngjtEd5727VTLp02HivVl3 >>>> vDYWxQHPK8oS6Xe8GOW0JjulwiqlYotSlrqSU5FMU5gozbk9zMFPIUW1e+51 >>>> 9ART8Ta2ItMhPWtAhRwwvxgy51exCy9kBc+m+ptKW5XRUXOImGcOQxszPGOO >>>> qIIOG1vVG/GBmo/0i6tliqBFYdXmw1qFV7tFiIbisZRH7Q/1NahjYTHqHhu3 >>>> Dv61T6WrerD+9N6S1Lrz1QYe2Fqa56BHhHSXM82NE86SVxEvUkoGegQU+c7b >>>> 6rY1JvuJHJzva7+M2XHApYCchCs4a1Yyd1qWB7yThJD57RIyX1TOg0+siV13 >>>> R+v6wxhQU0vBovH+5oAWmCZaPNT+F0Uvs3xWAxxaIR9r83wMj9qQeBZTKVzQ >>>> 1aFIi15KqAwOp12yWCmrqKTeXhjwYQNd8viCQCGN7AQyPglmzfbuEHalVjz4 >>>> oSJX >>>> =k281 >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> ---------------- >>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>> GPG Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < >>>> aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > wrote: >>>>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit >>>>>>> 80K >>>>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! >>>>> >>>>> Note that theses result are not in a vm (fio-rbd on host), so in a >>>>> vm we'll have overhead. >>>>> (I'm planning to send results in qemu soon) >>>>> >>>>>>> How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs? >>>>> >>>>> Theses results are with datas in buffer memory of osd nodes. >>>>> >>>>> When reading fulling on ssd (intel s3500), >>>>> >>>>> For 1 client, >>>>> >>>>> I'm around 33k iops without cache and 32k iops with cache, with 1 osd. >>>>> I'm around 55k iops without cache and 38k iops with cache, with 3 osd. >>>>> >>>>> with multiple clients jobs, I can reach around 70kiops by osd , and >>>>> 250k iops by osd when datas are in buffer. >>>>> >>>>> (cpus servers/clients are 2x 10 cores 3,1ghz e5 xeon) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> small tip : >>>>> I'm using tcmalloc for fio-rbd or rados bench to improve latencies >>>>> by around 20% >>>>> >>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 fio ... >>>>> LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 rados bench ... >>>>> >>>>> as a lot of time is spent in malloc/free >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (qemu support also tcmalloc since some months , I'll bench it too >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05372.html ) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll try to send full bench results soon, from 1 to 18 ssd osd. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>> De: "Mark Nelson" < mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@xxxxxxxxx >, "pushpesh sharma" < >>>>> pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx > >>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-users" < >>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 13:36:31 >>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops >>>>> around 40k >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> In the past we've hit some performance issues with RBD cache that >>>>> we've >>>>> fixed, but we've never really tried pushing a single VM beyond 40+K >>>>> read >>>>> IOPS in testing (or at least I never have). I suspect there's a couple >>>>> of possibilities as to why it might be slower, but perhaps joshd can >>>>> chime in as he's more familiar with what that code looks like. >>>>> >>>>> Frankly, I'm a little impressed that without RBD cache we can hit 80K >>>>> IOPS from 1 VM! How fast are the SSDs in those 3 OSDs? >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> On 06/09/2015 03:36 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: >>>>>> It's seem that the limit is mainly going in high queue depth (+- > >>>>>> 16) >>>>>> >>>>>> Here the result in iops with 1client- 4krandread- 3osd - with >>>>>> differents queue depth size. >>>>>> rbd_cache is almost the same than without cache with queue depth <16 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> cache >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> qd1: 1651 >>>>>> qd2: 3482 >>>>>> qd4: 7958 >>>>>> qd8: 17912 >>>>>> qd16: 36020 >>>>>> qd32: 42765 >>>>>> qd64: 46169 >>>>>> >>>>>> no cache >>>>>> -------- >>>>>> qd1: 1748 >>>>>> qd2: 3570 >>>>>> qd4: 8356 >>>>>> qd8: 17732 >>>>>> qd16: 41396 >>>>>> qd32: 78633 >>>>>> qd64: 79063 >>>>>> qd128: 79550 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>>> De: "aderumier" < aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> À: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-users" < >>>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:28:21 >>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops >>>>>> around 40k >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> We tried adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to scale with more disks in a single qemu vm, you need >>>>>> to use iothread feature from qemu and assign 1 iothread by disk >>>>>> (works with virtio-blk). >>>>>> It's working for me, I can scale with adding more disks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My bench here are done with fio-rbd on host. >>>>>> I can scale up to 400k iops with 10clients-rbd_cache=off on a >>>>>> single host and around 250kiops 10clients-rbdcache=on. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I just wonder why I don't have performance decrease around 30k >>>>>> iops with 1osd. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm going to see if this tracker >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11056 >>>>>> >>>>>> could be the cause. >>>>>> >>>>>> (My master build was done some week ago) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>>> De: "pushpesh sharma" < pushpesh.eck@xxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> À: "aderumier" < aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> Cc: "ceph-devel" < ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >, "ceph-users" < >>>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Juin 2015 09:21:04 >>>>>> Objet: Re: rbd_cache, limiting read on high iops around 40k >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alexandre, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have also seen something very similar on Hammer(0.94-1). We >>>>>> were doing some benchmarking for VMs hosted on hypervisor >>>>>> (QEMU-KVM, openstack-juno). Each Ubuntu-VM has a RBD as root disk, >>>>>> and 1 RBD as additional storage. For some strange reason it was >>>>>> not able to scale 4K- RR iops on each VM beyond 35-40k. We tried >>>>>> adding more RBDs to single VM, but no luck. However increasing >>>>>> number of VMs to 4 on a single hypervisor did scale to some >>>>>> extent. After this there was no much benefit we got from adding >>>>>> more VMs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the trend we have seen, x-axis is number of hypervisor, >>>>>> each hypervisor has 4 VM, each VM has 1 RBD:- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> VDbench is used as benchmarking tool. We were not saturating >>>>>> network and CPUs at OSD nodes. We were not able to saturate CPUs >>>>>> at hypervisors, and that is where we were suspecting of some >>>>>> throttling effect. However we haven't setted any such limits from >>>>>> nova or kvm end. We tried some CPU pinning and other KVM related >>>>>> tuning as well, but no luck. >>>>>> >>>>>> We tried the same experiment on a bare metal. It was 4K RR IOPs >>>>>> were scaling from 40K(1 RBD) to 180K(4 RBDs). But after that >>>>>> rather than scaling beyond that point the numbers were actually >>>>>> degrading. (Single pipe more congestion effect) >>>>>> >>>>>> We never suspected that rbd cache enable could be detrimental to >>>>>> performance. It would nice to route cause the problem if that is >>>>>> the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER < >>>>>> aderumier@xxxxxxxxx > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm doing benchmark (ceph master branch), with randread 4k qdepth=32, >>>>>> and rbd_cache=true seem to limit the iops around 40k >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> no cache >>>>>> -------- >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 1osd : 38300 iops >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 2osd : 69073 iops >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=false - 3osd : 78292 iops >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> cache >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 1osd : 38100 iops >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 2osd : 42457 iops >>>>>> 1 client - rbd_cache=true - 3osd : 45823 iops >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it expected ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=false 3 osd >>>>>> -------------------------------- >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>>>> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32 >>>>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>>>> Starting 1 process >>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9 >>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [307.5MB/0KB/0KB /s] >>>>>> [78.8K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113548: Tue >>>>>> Jun 9 07:48:42 2015 >>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=313169KB/s, iops=78292, runt= 32698msec >>>>>> slat (usec): min=5, max=530, avg=11.77, stdev= 6.77 >>>>>> clat (usec): min=70, max=2240, avg=336.08, stdev=94.82 >>>>>> lat (usec): min=101, max=2247, avg=347.84, stdev=95.49 >>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 173], 5.00th=[ 209], 10.00th=[ 231], 20.00th=[ 262], >>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 282], 40.00th=[ 302], 50.00th=[ 322], 60.00th=[ 346], >>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 370], 80.00th=[ 402], 90.00th=[ 454], 95.00th=[ 506], >>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 628], 99.50th=[ 692], 99.90th=[ 860], 99.95th=[ 948], >>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 1176] >>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=238856, max=360448, per=100.00%, avg=313402.34, >>>>>> stdev=25196.21 >>>>>> lat (usec) : 100=0.01%, 250=15.94%, 500=78.60%, 750=5.19%, 1000=0.23% >>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.03%, 4=0.01% >>>>>> cpu : usr=74.48%, sys=13.25%, ctx=703225, majf=0, minf=12452 >>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.8%, 16=87.0%, 32=12.1%, >>>>>> >=64=0.0% >>>>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >>>>>> >=64=0.0% >>>>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=91.6%, 8=3.4%, 16=4.5%, 32=0.4%, 64=0.0%, >>>>>> >=64=0.0% >>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>>>> >>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=313169KB/s, minb=313169KB/s, >>>>>> maxb=313169KB/s, mint=32698msec, maxt=32698msec >>>>>> >>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/45, merge=0/0, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00%, >>>>>> aggrios=0/24, aggrmerge=0/21, aggrticks=0/0, aggrin_queue=0, >>>>>> aggrutil=0.00% >>>>>> sda: ios=0/24, merge=0/21, ticks=0/0, in_queue=0, util=0.00% >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> fio result rbd_cache=true 3osd >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (g=0): rw=randread, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, >>>>>> ioengine=rbd, iodepth=32 >>>>>> fio-2.1.11 >>>>>> Starting 1 process >>>>>> rbd engine: RBD version: 0.1.9 >>>>>> Jobs: 1 (f=1): [r(1)] [100.0% done] [171.6MB/0KB/0KB /s] >>>>>> [43.1K/0/0 iops] [eta 00m:00s] >>>>>> rbd_iodepth32-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=113389: Tue >>>>>> Jun 9 07:47:30 2015 >>>>>> read : io=10000MB, bw=183296KB/s, iops=45823, runt= 55866msec >>>>>> slat (usec): min=7, max=805, avg=21.26, stdev=15.84 >>>>>> clat (usec): min=101, max=4602, avg=478.55, stdev=143.73 >>>>>> lat (usec): min=123, max=4669, avg=499.80, stdev=146.03 >>>>>> clat percentiles (usec): >>>>>> | 1.00th=[ 227], 5.00th=[ 274], 10.00th=[ 306], 20.00th=[ 350], >>>>>> | 30.00th=[ 390], 40.00th=[ 430], 50.00th=[ 470], 60.00th=[ 506], >>>>>> | 70.00th=[ 548], 80.00th=[ 596], 90.00th=[ 660], 95.00th=[ 724], >>>>>> | 99.00th=[ 844], 99.50th=[ 908], 99.90th=[ 1112], 99.95th=[ 1288], >>>>>> | 99.99th=[ 2192] >>>>>> bw (KB /s): min=115280, max=204416, per=100.00%, avg=183315.10, >>>>>> stdev=15079.93 >>>>>> lat (usec) : 250=2.42%, 500=55.61%, 750=38.48%, 1000=3.28% >>>>>> lat (msec) : 2=0.19%, 4=0.01%, 10=0.01% >>>>>> cpu : usr=60.27%, sys=12.01%, ctx=2995393, majf=0, minf=14100 >>>>>> IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.2%, 8=13.5%, 16=81.0%, 32=5.3%, >>>>>> >=64=0.0% >>>>>> submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >>>>>> >=64=0.0% >>>>>> complete : 0=0.0%, 4=95.0%, 8=0.1%, 16=1.0%, 32=4.0%, 64=0.0%, >>>>>> >=64=0.0% >>>>>> issued : total=r=2560000/w=0/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 >>>>>> latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32 >>>>>> >>>>>> Run status group 0 (all jobs): >>>>>> READ: io=10000MB, aggrb=183295KB/s, minb=183295KB/s, >>>>>> maxb=183295KB/s, mint=55866msec, maxt=55866msec >>>>>> >>>>>> Disk stats (read/write): >>>>>> dm-0: ios=0/61, merge=0/0, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01%, >>>>>> aggrios=0/29, aggrmerge=0/32, aggrticks=0/8, aggrin_queue=8, >>>>>> aggrutil=0.01% >>>>>> sda: ios=0/29, merge=0/32, ticks=0/8, in_queue=8, util=0.01% >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович >>>> Моб.: +79229045757 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail >>>> message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) >>>> named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended >>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this >>>> message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, >>>> or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have >>>> received this communication in error, please notify the sender by >>>> telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and >>>> all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies >>>> or electronically stored copies). >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Pushpesh >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |